, cheong wrote

@GoddersUK: No. The point here is just to take it off shelves.

Nope, the point was to extract a license fee. Documents from the US case show that Apple offered Samsung a deal before the case begun. Samsung refused so stuff went legal. 

http://www.techspot.com/news/49768-microsoft-licensed-apple-tablet-patents-samsung-refused.html

The important thing to note is that Apple doesn't appear to be as interested in the money as it is in the 'non-copying' clause.

Since Apple relies on core component that only Samsung can provide, any fines subjected to them will return to themselves when the next time Samsung adjust the price for Apple when negotiating the next supply contract.

They can get components; the problem is getting them in sufficient quantities. What Apple is finding is that they need two or more suppliers to get the same yields as Samsung. The supply of screens will be handled by Sharp and Panasonic (I think Sharp are already doing the new In-Cell screens), the chips will be made by TSMC and Global Foundries.